Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Continuing trespass

  • 27 Apr 2010

    TANG KAM SHEUNG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF Y.Y. MANSION

    Citation
    TANG KAM SHEUNG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF Y.Y. MANSION
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDBM309/2005

    The IO breached its duties under Clauses 21(i) and 21(l) of the DMC and s.18(1)(c) of the BMO by failing to take reasonably necessary steps to remove an unlawful wall that caused continuing trespass and obstructed a common passageway; only the IO could enforce rights over common parts so the individual owners' claims against the neighbouring owner were not maintainable; a mandatory injunction ordering the IO to remove the part of the wall within the CP25 boundary within nine months was required to resolve the continuing trespass and obstruction, while damages were not awarded due to mitigatio…

  • 27 Apr 2010

    LUNG PO KWAN AND ANOTHER v. TANG KAM SHEUNG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    LUNG PO KWAN AND ANOTHER v. TANG KAM SHEUNG AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDBM243/2005

    The IO, by virtue of Section 16 and Section 18(1)(c) BMO together with Clauses 21(i) and 21(l) of the DMC, had a duty to take reasonably necessary steps to remove the wall that illegally intruded into CP25; the wall constituted a continuing trespass and the IO failed to take sufficient measures, therefore a mandatory injunction ordering the IO to remove the part of the wall within CP25 was justified (compliance within nine months); individual owners' direct claims against the occupier for obstruction were not maintainable because rights in relation to common parts are vested in the IO under S…

  • 20 Jan 1998

    SHING SHU CHIU and Others v. KAN CHOI MING and Another

    Citation
    SHING SHU CHIU and Others v. KAN CHOI MING and Another
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA755/1997

    The Court held the defendants' admissions established trespass including continuing trespass and that the oral settlement was intended to be discharged by performance (actual payment and completion of lease formalities); dishonoured cheques did not discharge the plaintiffs' claim and payment into court in a separate action does not extinguish the present trespass claim though it is credit in assessing damages, therefore summary judgment for the plaintiffs was properly entered and the appeal was dismissed.